https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343648 In depot-clearance valuation, assessable value must be based on the depot price prevailing on or nearest to the date of factory removal; post-clearance depot prices cannot be used to increase duty demand, so demand on that basis was unsustainable. The limitation challenge failed because concealment of higher-price clearances and non-disclosure of material facts justified extended limitation. Excess duty could not be directly adjusted against short payment in the same proceeding where a separate refund claim was pending. Penalty under Section 11AC was not justified in an initial-period dispute involving unsettled depot-clearance valuation, and was deleted. en-us Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 May 2017 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343648 In depot-clearance valuation, assessable value must be based on the depot price prevailing on or nearest to the date of factory removal; post-clearance depot prices cannot be used to increase duty demand, so demand on that basis was unsustainable. The limitation challenge failed because concealment of higher-price clearances and non-disclosure of material facts justified extended limitation. Excess duty could not be directly adjusted against short payment in the same proceeding where a separate refund claim was pending. Penalty under Section 11AC was not justified in an initial-period dispute involving unsettled depot-clearance valuation, and was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343648